Draft pick compensation for FA's is gone now. - Page 3

JDOldSchool · 10-24-2006, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikev

My point was that it's BS for teams like Florida to do what they did, firesale and get rid of every expensive player they have and then pocket the money from luxury tax/revenue sharing as profit, when that's not what it's intended to be.

I agree. While a team shouldn't be told they HAVE to spend a certain amount, they should be forced to spend money they are given.

crackpott · 10-24-2006, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoCubsAndJays

I always thought it was a full year after the player was drafted.

It is, but you can technically trade them as a PTBNL after 6 months.

crackpott · 10-24-2006, 05:51 PM

I agree with what Andy said.

Although it looks like losing compensation picks hurts small teams... it really will help them.

The teams that are getting the compensation picks ARE the big market teams. They're the ones who can afford to offer arbitration. Using the Jays as an example, it would have been nice to get something for Delgado. Anything. But he wouldn't let us trade him, and we couldn't offer him arbitration as there would be no possible way of affording the contract he would have gotten if he said yes. So we couldn't offer arbitration, thus no compensatory pick was awarded.

Now, on the other hand, assume Delgado was on Boston. In the unlikely event they didn't resign him, they could still offer him arbitration as they could AFFORD to take the risk of him accepting. They'd get the compensation picks. The Jays did not.

Not only is it more the larger market teams that stop getting draft picks, this allows for the smaller market teams to sign players. Although the Jays aren't exactly small market anymore, compared to Boston and New York they still are. And who do you think a draft pick means more to, Toronto or the Yankees? Draft picks are more important to the smaller clubs, and when they don't have to give them up in order to sign free agents, you should see more activity in the market from the smaller clubs.

I just think overall people are worried about nothing. This is nothing but good news.

JDOldSchool · 10-24-2006, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crackpott

I agree with what Andy said.

Although it looks like losing compensation picks hurts small teams... it really will help them.

The teams that are getting the compensation picks ARE the big market teams. They're the ones who can afford to offer arbitration. Using the Jays as an example, it would have been nice to get something for Delgado. Anything. But he wouldn't let us trade him, and we couldn't offer him arbitration as there would be no possible way of affording the contract he would have gotten if he said yes. So we couldn't offer arbitration, thus no compensatory pick was awarded.

Now, on the other hand, assume Delgado was on Boston. In the unlikely event they didn't resign him, they could still offer him arbitration as they could AFFORD to take the risk of him accepting. They'd get the compensation picks. The Jays did not.

Not only is it more the larger market teams that stop getting draft picks, this allows for the smaller market teams to sign players. Although the Jays aren't exactly small market anymore, compared to Boston and New York they still are. And who do you think a draft pick means more to, Toronto or the Yankees? Draft picks are more important to the smaller clubs, and when they don't have to give them up in order to sign free agents, you should see more activity in the market from the smaller clubs.

I just think overall people are worried about nothing. This is nothing but good news.

I understand what you're saying, but when teams with far less money than the Jays are able to offer arbitration to far more expensive players your argument is weakened.

I still think this is going to end up poorly for the wrong teams. It won't hurt baseball as much as a hard cap, but it will hurt.

mikev · 10-24-2006, 07:38 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061024/...a_ne/bbo_labor

From the wording in this article, draft picks for "some" free agents will be eliminated.

Maybe just Type A guys now will get compensation picks or something.

disposableheros · 10-24-2006, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikev

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061024/...a_ne/bbo_labor

From the wording in this article, draft picks for "some" free agents will be eliminated.

Maybe just Type A guys now will get compensation picks or something.

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...1&postcount=34

mikev · 10-24-2006, 09:50 PM

MLB.com link, with details: http://oakland.athletics.mlb.com/NAS...=.jsp&c_id=mlb

Draft Choice Compensation
1. Type C free agents eliminated in 2006
2. Also in 2006, compensation for type B players becomes indirect (sandwich pick) as opposed to direct compensation from signing Club.
3. Effective 2007, Type A players limited to top 20 percent of each position (down from 30 percent) and Type B players become 21 percent - 40 percent at each position (rather than 31 percent - 50 percent).
4. Salary arbitration offer and acceptance dates move to December 1 and December 7.

MuertoDesagradecido · 10-24-2006, 10:16 PM

Quote:

• As far as the June First-Year Draft is concerned, teams will now get same-slot compensation if they don't sign their draft picks, meaning if a team fails to sign it's No. 3 pick in one draft, it will get the 3(a) pick in the next year's draft. More important, teams will no longer have until the next draft to sign their picks, but must do so by the following Aug. 15 or the player goes back into the pool. Minor League players that fall under the Rule 5 Draft can now be protected from an extra year. Currently players with four to five years of experience can be selected. It will increase to five to six years.

This is pretty interesting. It seems like owners could intentionally not sign their picks in a weak draft year in order to stockpile picks for a deeper draft, unless I'm misunderstanding and it just moves their regular pick that year up to the relevant slot.

QuestGAV · 10-24-2006, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MuertoDesagradecido

This is pretty interesting. It seems like owners could intentionally not sign their picks in a weak draft year in order to stockpile picks for a deeper draft, unless I'm misunderstanding and it just moves their regular pick that year up to the relevant slot.

You have to consider that you're getting a player who is a year further from contributing to the big league club. This would be an awful tough sell to your fans. Granted, there are teams who simply don't sign their picks and no :riot: has gone on.

Skipaway · 10-24-2006, 11:49 PM

So with the new deal the value of players with ending contracts just got reduced. It's gonna be harder for non-contending teams to trade away players for value.

Skipaway · 10-24-2006, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crackpott

Draft picks are more important to the smaller clubs, and when they don't have to give them up in order to sign free agents, you should see more activity in the market from the smaller clubs.

Draft picks are not more important to the smaller clubs. What the smaller clubs really need are players close to the major leagues. That's one reason why college draftees are better for smaller clubs, because they generally advance through the system faster, therefore using up less resources.

Draft picks generally mean two things: far from ready, and high bonus payouts.

Erik W. · 10-25-2006, 09:58 AM

These changes were also lost:

Quote:

In addition, the Dec. 7 and Jan. 8 deadlines for free agents to re-sign with their former teams were eliminated, and management agreed there would be no contraction under the term of the agreement.

The latter isn't a huge deal since there hadn't been serious contraction talk since the Expos (RIP) were moves, but I think the first one is huge. And I always hated that rule.

jaxmagicman · 10-25-2006, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikev

Which is, IMO, the biggest issued that needs to be addressed in the CBA. What good does it to, baseball-wise, to give the Marlins 25M in revenue sharing/luxury tax money when they only spend 15M on their entire team?

You can't pick on the Marlins as a team not trying to improve. They put a good team on the field this year. Go look at the Pirates and Royals.

JDOldSchool · 10-25-2006, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by disposableheros

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...1&postcount=34

Well, that changes things. I always thought some of those Type C guys weren't all that worthy of compensation anyway.

mikev · 10-25-2006, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaxmagicman

You can't pick on the Marlins as a team not trying to improve. They put a good team on the field this year. Go look at the Pirates and Royals.

The point wasn't whether or not they put out a good team, the point was they are receiving revenue sharing and luxury tax money and not putting it back into the team.

Hell, make them use the money for a retractable roof stadium or something, but just pocketing it as profit is wrong.

mgom27 · 10-25-2006, 12:13 PM

Part of the deal that should have been include is the rule that both the DH and Pitcher bats in the Lineup at the same time,MLBTV Channel Contract,Interleague Play all year round,more Wild Cards teams in the Playoffs because then Phil,Chicago White Sox,Astros and others would have also made it this year,expand rosters to 30 and Geographical Realignment!
The Reason why the World Series was moved to start on Tuesday's so Chris Berman could be their for game one and so ESPN could show the games in the future so Fox doesn't have interrupt it's programming that has alreday it's first or new saeson! Retrackable Roofs at Stadiums that aren't Domes so their won't be an Rain Outs exspically in the Postseason!
I don't live in Orlando meaning Casselberry then Altamonte Springs but use to! Would like to move back their! All I'm saying about Orlando is that baseball needs to start a league to go up against the MLB that has teams in cities like Orlando that has other Sports Teams in it inlcuding Canada!

Joshv02 · 10-25-2006, 12:15 PM

Quote: